Artificial regeneration describes the renewal of forest crop by human intervention

such as planting, sowing or other artificial methods. Economically, while more expensive

than natural regeneration, it provides more control to humans, has a higher rate of tree

survival, and results in more productive—andprofitable—stand in a shorter period of time

(North Carolina Forestry Association 2018). Environmentally, it is less effort to manage, has

more predictable seedling production, and allows for better controlled plant spacing, for

using genetically improved planting stock, and for species conversion (Barnett and Baker

1991). However, economically, it is much riskier and more labour- and cost-intensive and

requires a large investment at the beginning. Environmentally, this method disturbs root

development and makes trees much more susceptible to severe natural disturbances, not to

mention less adapted to microsites. There is usually less consideration given to long-term

benefits as well. For example, in Arkhangelsk in Russia, excessive harvesting near transport

routes has contributed to forest degradation because practices did not consider long-term

regeneration (FAO 2003, 84).

There are numerous factors that play into the decision between natural versus artificial

regeneration, including cost, risk to the soil, temporal factors, yield expectations, flexibility,

genetics, local crop consideration etc. While natural regeneration is a more sustainable and

environmentally-friendly approach to reforestation, many consider the upfront costs of

artificial regeneration to be worth the price for a lower-risk and more quickly profitable

process. It often makes sense to give natural regeneration a chance first and to combine

elements from both approaches, for example by only planting a small cluster of trees and

letting that spark the natural regeneration cycle (Reid et al. 2018). This intermixed approach

has been an ongoing discussion for decades (Miegroet 1967, 2).